Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2020

Mishustin

NedFausa, about articles like [1]. Contrary to what one would guess from the headline, there's actually next to nothing about WP in it. I've argued a few times at Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2019 page that we exclude "passing mentions" from this page (but not for example Talk:Mikhail Mishustin), and people generally let me have my way.

The thinking is that what we link here should have at least a little more to say about WP, per "Please list coverage about Wikipedia itself here, by month." There's enough of WP in various media that we can be a little picky if we want to. There's never been an Rfc or anything like that on this, not many editors bother about these pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard for inclusion

Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2019#Standard_for_inclusion

Parking this here incase it comes up again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Press#The_"details"_link_in_the_template

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical overview of Wikipedia:Press coverage

Wikipedia @20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution, a newly published book of essays, includes "From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades" by Omer Benjakob and Stephen Harrison. Referring to Wikipedia:Press coverage, they note that "by 2006 an organized index of all media references to Wikipedia was set up—first with a list for every year and then, as coverage swelled, one for every month as well." Contributors to this page may find that chapter interesting, but I for one balked at its conclusion, which proposes that the Wikimedia Foundation grant special status for wiki journalists, including access to content off-limits to plebeian editors like us. This strikes me as a terrible idea. It's my impression that journalists do not take advantage of existing channels of scrutinizing Wikipedia's inner goings-on, such as performing more than a cursory scan of the revision history, posing questions at article talk pages or user talk pages of involved editors, or contacting via email editors who have enabled that method. Journalists usually arrive late to the party and are either too busy or too lazy to do their homework. Granting them exceptional privileges would reinforce their rush to superficiality and, worse, compound it with the ability to spread information beyond Wikipedia that administrators have seen fit to RevDelete from this website. Should that happen, Wikimedia Foundation better beef up its legal staff to handle the litigation and set aside some hefty settlement funds for libel suits. NedFausa (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This post I must have missed on my watchlist. Sounds like an interesting read! Maybe they'll publish some good free access excerpts at some point. I've always assumed interested journalists go the journalist route, as in trying to get some anonymous comments from (current and former), WMF-staff, arbcom members, admins and editors. That's their job, but "special status for wiki journalists" as in some sort of admin-access... Sounds icky. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I guess we could invent a Rfa variant for "special status for wiki journalists" (language specific of course), that could be fun.

Nomination

Hello, I'm Omer Benjakob and I'm applying for the SSfWJ status, looking forward to your questions!

Questions for the candidate

About your article about WP and the Warsaw concentration camp...

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]